As a leader what's worse, making a bad decision or continuing with the bad decision shortly or long after it's been shown to be bad?

MSG (Join to see)

No brainer... the leader that keeps to the track and continual staying with a bad Course if Action... without trying to change the variables that might allow you to arrive at a different outcome. That leader is destined for a lessons learned in the, "this is what you shouldn't do... catagory of leadership". Thankful, I listened... and adapted... unfortunately... thats not always the case.

As a leader... I have made plenty of poor decision... and a few out right bad one.

Some were so bad that I was like, "I couldnt have dreamed that up did I?!" And of course, I had! And the truth of it stung... but was able to move past it. As the soldiers saw that... people make mistakes... and if I should them lessons learned for later... so be it.

One thing I think should be considered as another facet of this senario... is failing to completely implemwnt a plan. I have watched folks fail to completely implement a plan... and as soon as something wasnt going right... they pulled it or changed it... without following through. This is in some case just as bad as you do not see where the real challenges are hidden... just the "tips of the icebergs". This is where a good leader has to watch and see if they can track it and find the systemic or real challenge... then try to fix it.

My 2 cents anyways

A leader is going to make a bad decision from time to time, unless he's making no decisions at all. But to stick with a bad decision once the facts have shown it to be a bad decision is the far greater offense.

Decisions that turn out bad are a consequence of making decisions. The only ways to avoid making a mistake are to never make a decision and never take a risk.

That being said, following through with a bad decision is a form of the sunk cost fallacy. "We're halfway to hell, we might as well go all of the way. No half measures."

The ability to recognize failure and change course is an element of mature leadership. Leaders that never fail should not be trusted any more than leaders that don't change their mind in the face of failure. Unfortunately, the OER/NCOER systems combined with remote promotion boards effectively weed out leaders that take risks and learn from mistakes. Consequently, leaders who's highest capabilities are quoting regulations chapter and verse and following the plan all of the way to hell are more likely to get promoted than leaders that push the boundaries and learn from their mistakes. The good leaders have to live within a system that one wrong move can end a career.

This is not to condemn all Army leaders. Quite the opposite, I knew plenty who were intelligent and flexible and didn't document the "learning experiences" of their subordinates. I also saw plenty of toxic leaders that moved on up by avoiding difficult decisions, fixing blame to others, and sucking up to their commander.